J. H. McLeaish & Co. v. T. Binford

S.D. Texas

J. H. McLeaish & Co. v. T. Binford

52 F.2d 737, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1688

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Texas

DecidedSeptember 30, 1931

DocketNo. 478

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 52 F.2d 737 (J. H. McLeaish & Co. v. T. Binford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

J. H. McLeaish & Co. v. T. Binford, 52 F.2d 737, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1688 (S.D. Tex. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

KENNERLY, District Judge.

This is a companion ease to the ease of Ed Sproles v. T. Binford et al. (D. C. Equity No. 476) 52 F.(2d) 730, this day decided. Complainants are now, and have been for a long period of time, engaged in the business of buying uncompressed cotton in large quantities at Weimar, in Colorado county, Tex., and vicinity, and transporting it on their own trucks (which they have license to operate, and are lawfully operating, over the highways of Texas) to Houston, Tex., where they sell it. They make substantially the same allegation and attack made by Complainant Sproles et al., in No. 476, respecting an act of the Legislature having for its purpose the regulation, etc., of the operation of vehicles upon the public highways of Texas (chapter 282, approved June 11, 1931, General Laws, Forty-Second Legislature, page 507, House Bill 336 [Vernon’s Ann. P. C. Tex. art. 827a, § 1 et seq.]). This is particularly true with respect to section 3 (f) of said act. The opinion in the Sproles Case, No. 476, disposes of this case.

Interlocutory injunction will be denied, except as against the enforcement of section 3 (f), which will be limited, as provided in the opinion in the Sproles Case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KENNERLY, District Judge.

This is a companion ease to the ease of Ed Sproles v. T. Binford et al. (D. C. Equity No. 476) 52 F.(2d) 730, this day decided. Complainants are now, and have been for a long period of time, engaged in the business of buying uncompressed cotton in large quantities at Weimar, in Colorado county, Tex., and vicinity, and transporting it on their own trucks (which they have license to operate, and are lawfully operating, over the highways of Texas) to Houston, Tex., where they sell it. They make substantially the same allegation and attack made by Complainant Sproles et al., in No. 476, respecting an act of the Legislature having for its purpose the regulation, etc., of the operation of vehicles upon the public highways of Texas (chapter 282, approved June 11, 1931, General Laws, Forty-Second Legislature, page 507, House Bill 336 [Vernon’s Ann. P. C. Tex. art. 827a, § 1 et seq.]). This is particularly true with respect to section 3 (f) of said act. The opinion in the Sproles Case, No. 476, disposes of this case.

Interlocutory injunction will be denied, except as against the enforcement of section 3 (f), which will be limited, as provided in the opinion in the Sproles Case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 F.2d 737, 1931 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-h-mcleaish-co-v-t-binford-txsd-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack